NASA Did NASA really fake the moon landing?

[Ian]

I know this particular cons-theory has been done to death already, but does anyone on this forum have the means to examine the rate of fall of dust from the lunar rovers wheels as seen on NASA film footage?
If the whole thing was filmed on Earth the one thing no one can fake is gravitational acceleration.
The rate of fall of the lunar dust on the film footage must coincide with being physically on the moon, and I think if you are expert enough with video you could possibly either debunk this one or debunk NASA.

Is anyone out there?

 

[chroot]

The gravitational acceleration due to any mass M, at distance r, is

<br /> a = \frac{{GM}}<br /> {{r^2 }}<br />

Pick up a freshman physics book.

- Warren

 

[Ian]

cheroot,
what on Earth are you on about? or smoking?
Look, when those films are shown to us, in order for them to be showed in 'real-time' the astronaut who was filmed jumping up and down must fall back to the surface of the moon at moon g, not Earth g (9.8m/s-2). This also applies to the dust off the rovers wheel trails. All the footage must have continuity of this basic fact. If we examine that continuity we can either prove or disprove whether they went or not.
Simply put, if you set the rate of fall of the dust from the wheels in the films according to lunar g, a fake film will run in slow motion but the real Mcoy will not.
Its not a very complex concept to understand.

 

[russ_watters]

Fine dust on Earth doesn't fall, it billows-up in a cloud. The very fact that you can see the dust arcing - regardless of an attempt to measure the arc - tells you you are looking at a vacuum.

 

[chroot]

I understand the concept, Ian. You asked if anyone had the means to examine ballistic trajectories in moon-landing footage, so I provided the relevant expression of the Moon's acceleration due to gravity. It's about 1.63 m/s^2.

Go for it.

- Warren

 

[loseyourname]

Well, I think his point is that you can fake a vacuum - or at least get very close to it. You can't fake the moon's gravitational pull. As far as I know, there is also no way to film in slow motion, only playback. So if the film is shown at full speed, and the men and dust are falling at the rate they should according to the acceleration due to gravity on the moon, the film is authentic, end of story.

 

[loseyourname]

I understand the concept, Ian. You asked if anyone had the means to examine ballistic trajectories in moon-landing footage, so I provided the relevant expression of the Moon's acceleration due to gravity. It's about 1.63 m/s^2.

Go for it.

- Warren

It's even easier than what you posted. At least in my freshman physics book, they have the quantity for the moon's gravitational acceleration. No need to even calculate.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, I think his point is that you can fake a vacuum - or at least get very close to it. You can't fake the moon's gravitational pull. As far as I know, there is also no way to film in slow motion, only playback. So if the film is shown at full speed, and the men and dust are falling at the rate they should according to the acceleration due to gravity on the moon, the film is authentic, end of story.

Well you just film at 60 or 120 frames per second or something like that and when you are "releasing" the film to the public, you set it at 30fps so that the action will be going at 1/2 or 1/4 speed. That's how they do it in slow-motion scenes in movies.

Of course, i remember shots where, if this were happening, the astronauts would have had to have been doing some other things 2x or 4x as fast as normal people could to keep up the cherade.

 

[chroot]

For record, things fall about 1/6 as fast on the moon as they do on Earth.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I think his point is that you can fake a vacuum - or at least get very close to it.

Can you really? on something as big as a sound stage? Or bigger? We have lots of video of the rovers and they traveled kilometers from their landers.

I have a lot of trouble with the slowing-the-video thing too, because of Penguino's point.

 

[George Jones]

Because the Apollo missions actually landed on the Moon, we know with certainty when the Hittites invaded Babylon.

Regards,
George

 

[Phobos]

Can you really? on something as big as a sound stage? Or bigger? We have lots of video of the rovers and they traveled kilometers from their landers.

I have a lot of trouble with the slowing-the-video thing too, because of Penguino's point.

As russ is already no doubt aware, astronomer Phil Plait touched upon this (emphasis mine)...
from http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Bad [claim]: When the movies of the astronauts walking and driving the lunar rover are doubled in speed, they look just like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. This is clearly how the movies were faked.

Good [debunking]: This was the first new bit I have seen from the HBs, and it's funny. To me even when sped up, the images didn't look like they were filmed in Earth's gravity. The astronauts were sidling down a slope, and they looked weird to me, not at all like they would on Earth. I will admit that if wires were used, the astronauts' gait could be simulated.

However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!

This is another case of selective vision on the part of the HBs.

 

[George Jones]

Because the Apollo missions actually landed on the Moon, we know with certainty when the Hittites invaded Babylon.

I was referring to the reflectors left on the moon by the atronauts. Astonomers use them to meausure the round-trip time for light that goes from the Earth to the Moon to the Earth. This has allowed astronomers to meaure very accurately changes in the size of the Moon's orbit over the last 35 years.

If these reflectors were not actually left by the astronauts, the conspiracy would have to be huge, involving astronomers, professors, postdocs, grad students, technicians, etc. over the last 35 years.

These accurate measurements have allowed the position of the Moon to be retrodicted and compared to eclipse data recorded at the time of ancient Babylon, thus giving accurate information about when the Hittites invaded.

I read this in a 2001 (plus or minus a year) Sky and Telescope. If anyone's interested, I could probably find the out which exact issue the article's in.

Regards,
George

 

[Mattara]

You can't fake the moon's gravitational pull

Well, bringing to mind the NASA antigravity chamber(s) and the fake gravity at MIR, this could actually be possible.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

This is not a valid theory because it isn't based on facts that it can explain better than the true story.

You also have to understand that the first moon landing was broadcast live, so how are you going to tape something at high speed at the same time that it's playing at normal speed?

Lets not forget the huge problem with all those saturn V rockets that we launched into space with all those witnesses. Were they all brainwashed or something? What about all the news channels which covered these stories through the development of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs? Remeber all that footage with Walter Cronkite? Were the saturn rockets really just tiny model rockets which the government also taped at high speed and then slowed down in order to make them look more massive?

What about all the radio chatter in between the space capsules and the ground? All those transmissions were received by third party obervers too. radio transmission in planes is pretty much line of sight, and I'd imagine it works that way for spacecraft too because spacecraft were evolved from planes, including their instrumentation, so why did such a broad area of people receive transmissions from the spacecraft if the spacecraft wasn't in space? Did the government rig huge antenna arrays around the globe to fake all these transmissions?

And also taking into account all the points brought up by the good people of pf in this thread, how can anyone believe that the moon landings were fake? The only way someone would believe that is if they just can't understand our reality (that it truly is possible to leave the planet and visit other ones), or they have a hefty proficiency of denial. Granted I'm a huge conspiracy nut; I don't arrive at my conclusions without common sense, reason, the scientific method, objective judgment, etc.

Thats funny Mattara... anti-gravity chambers...

 

[Mattara]

Thats funny Mattara... anti-gravity chambers...

That might not be the official title for it, but how do you think they train astronouts at NASA?

Also, remember the laser measurements that can be done to measure the distance from Earth to the moon. There are mirrors up there placed by an apollo crew. Try to counter that one :)

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

That might not be the official title for it, but how do you think they train astronouts at NASA?

Also, remember the laser measurements that can be done to measure the distance from Earth to the moon. There are mirrors up there placed by an apollo crew. Try to counter that one :)

they train them in an airplane. They nick named it the "vomit comet". It's a modified boeing of some kind i think (707? not sure). You've noticed that if you drop a penny while going over a hump in a roller coaster that it tends to almost float right? Thats the same principle, you just fly an airplane in a much bigger "hump" and you have artificial zero gravity within the inertial frame of the plane for a period of time. If you throw a baseball up in the air, in it's inertial frame it is at zero g.yes, as George mentioned, the mirrors are a big thing to consider. If he didn't mention them, I would've because they are very important. Along with all the other things mentioned in this thread, I hope there is enough to put this to rest. Just use your imagination, there are many more ways to show that this is not a valid conspiracy theory. arghhh!

 

[chroot]

There's both the vomit comet and the neutral-buoyancy lab, which is underwater.

- Warren

 

[Vincent Vega]

The people that believe we didn't land on the moon, are any of them planetary scientist?

Hundreds of people have images of the spacecraft closing in on the moon from Earth bound telescopes. We have pics of the darkside of the moon. Granted we have found rocks from Mars on Earth from exsplotions, did they think we found these samples from the moon(chemical makeup/radioactive dating) already on Earth? I still can't fathom this silly impugn.
Armstrong and Aldrin taking part in some type of fakery? After 30+ years of open evidence? The fact of the matter is, if Armstrong and Aldrin were to take off their helmets, their spit would boil in that vacuum.

 

[loseyourname]

Well you just film at 60 or 120 frames per second or something like that and when you are "releasing" the film to the public, you set it at 30fps so that the action will be going at 1/2 or 1/4 speed. That's how they do it in slow-motion scenes in movies.

Of course, i remember shots where, if this were happening, the astronauts would have had to have been doing some other things 2x or 4x as fast as normal people could to keep up the cherade.

What I mean is you can detect that by examining the film. The only way to cover that up would be to never let anyone look at the film itself.

 

[scott1]

The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it.

Out of all junk on Fox that(which 100% of Fox) that has to biggest,stupidest,untruthiness(I call 2006 word of the year!),Idoitic,crapottery(the term in used to describe fake secience and the term used to refer to durgs),consirpicay,junk.If Fox wanted it's veiwers to believe that area 51 was the place where the Apllo moon landings were flimend,them and there viewers would also asume that the Roswell new mexico UFO inccedent was real and that the ship was taken to Area 51 to be reversed engineerd.Well if it was aliens they masterd intersteller transportaion which would mean that going to the moon would be no big diffuclty for them!So the government could of reversed engineerd the technology and used it to go to the moon.Anyway if it was fake couldn't the soviet union figured it out and tell everone to make the U.S. look bad and tell everone that U.S. government is misleading everone including there on citzens.

Is it possble to sue fox for misleading it's "viewers"(meaning people who forgot to chage the channel after the simpsons)
Is it possible to get your cabel company to not provide you with bad channels?

Edit:I found a good article that explains some of things that badastronmy explained try to explain better
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm

The claim that these known and mapped Moon mountains that are viewed from myriad angles in Apollo photos [3] are really a fake backdrop that was accidently used in two staged studio sets on Earth is not a theory but an exercise in silliness. BadAstronomy.com explains the other example FOX presented of an alleged identical background "anomaly." [6]

 

[Captain Zappo]

Edit:I found a good article that explains some of things that badastronmy explained try to explain better
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm

Hah...nice. I enjoyed reading that. My girlfriend is convinced that the moon landing was a fake, so I'm going to show her this website later tonight.

 

[mimic]

cheroot,
what on Earth are you on about? or smoking?
Look, when those films are shown to us, in order for them to be showed in 'real-time' the astronaut who was filmed jumping up and down must fall back to the surface of the moon at moon g, not Earth g (9.8m/s-2). This also applies to the dust off the rovers wheel trails. All the footage must have continuity of this basic fact. If we examine that continuity we can either prove or disprove whether they went or not.
Simply put, if you set the rate of fall of the dust from the wheels in the films according to lunar g, a fake film will run in slow motion but the real Mcoy will not.
Its not a very complex concept to understand.

what about those laser reflectors they put on the moons surface which are still being used today to track distance?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Do you not see, they sent these up with remote devices and then left them to rest on the moon. Also the radio signals that could be traced to the moon were actually bounced off a radio transmitter that was sent up as part of the mirror package

The most convincing thing to me is of all the 100's of people who worked for NASA during the three moon landings, no ones come forward yet to uncover the sham.

EDIT: I also tend to think its actually harder to fake a moon landing and get away with it, than to actually go there. The chances of you pulling it off are remote to insignificant.

 

[Chronos]

To reiterate other posters, the lasar ranging mirrors left, and still functioning, on the moon would be enough to warrant a littering conviction. Albeit, they might be foil gum wrappers left by forgetful astronauts who removed their helmet to spit . . .

 

[scott1]

The most convincing thing to me is of all the 100's of people who worked for NASA during the three moon landings, no ones come forward yet to uncover the sham.

My grandfather was one of the them.He was there when the lunched the rockets(I think) and he's not someone that gets involed in conspricay..

 

[ZapperZ]

http://www.clavius.org/

Can't get any more meticulous than this.

Zz.

 

[FredGarvin]

http://www.clavius.org/

Can't get any more meticulous than this.

Zz.

I like that site very much. Thanks for the link.

 

[Universe_Man]

Why is there so much fuss about whether we really went to the moon? You could come up with some grand conspiracy theory with vacuum chamber sets and ways to manipulate film, but at the end of the day, it would be a WHOLE lot cheaper and far easier just to go to the moon rather than fake it. We went to the moon. period.

 

[totalidiot]

Lies are always easier to believe than the truth, especially very big ones.

Would it not have been possible to have pre-recorded the whole affair in for arguments sake in area 51 then play the tape at the allotted time?

They could have sent up real rockets that would fly out of sight then break up and then fall back down to Earth over the ocean?

All the reported Apollo radio transmissions were allegedly broadcast from Washington DC.

I am an idiot but thing I know for sure is.

1. It is very easy to fake things on TV however convincing they may seem.

2. The people in power have a tendency to tell us what ever suit them at the time.

3. NASA has stopped going to the moon and has no plans to go back there.

4. I know for sure 100% in 1969 NASA/US Gov did have the technology to fake the moon landings. I can not say with absolute certainty they did go there.

5. The Russian that according to even NASA sources were ahead of the Americans in rocketry during the 1960s could not do it.

6. People will believe just about any old rubbish as long as it suits them to do so.

One thing I would like to see is the telemetric data. With particular interest to the moon take off and the rendezvous with Luna orbiter.

 

[goavs4]

Thousands of people were involved from all over the country and in fact the world when you consider the radio relay stations and other such support. As has been said, considering the effort involved not only to fake all aspects of the mission (launches, film, photos, video including the dust falling in a vacuum, mirrors for laser ranging from Earth, etc...) but also the effort to cover it up for 30+ years, it would have been FAR more difficult to fake it all than to have actually done it. Many good sites are listed here in this thread, that Clavius site is one of the best I've ever seen on debunking the conspiracy nuts. Bravo!

Isn't lunacy such a great word, especially considering it's origins.

3. NASA has stopped going to the moon and has no plans to go back there

Do you live in a cave? http://exploration.nasa.gov/

So I have one question. When we go back to the moon to get our flags left there on the moon's surface, will all of the conspiracy theorists provide us with a convenient new place to plant them?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Ouch, I get a headache just reading your post.

Lies are always easier to believe than the truth, especially very big ones.

Such as?

Would it not have been possible to have pre-recorded the whole affair in for arguments sake in area 51 then play the tape at the allotted time?

With the number of people receiving the transmissions across the world, as it rotated, the only way to "fake" it would have been to send a drone around the moon. Is it really such a leap to realize sending a self-guided robotic drone is just as difficult as sending men?

They could have sent up real rockets that would fly out of sight then break up and then fall back down to Earth over the ocean?

And yet, we have proof that they were in space. So this argument is ungrounded and frivalous.

All the reported Apollo radio transmissions were allegedly broadcast from Washington DC.

Allegedly? Why would you broadcast from D.C instead of Houston? There are no satellite dishes big enough in D.C.! It's stupid to think that the "corrupt beauracrats" are too lazy to walk too far from the White House, so it must be transmitted from close to the "center of coruption." What about how the transmissions were received by people the world over (even while D.C. was on the other side of the planet, BTW)? Is there some "reflector dome" encompassing the entire planet? Gimme a break...

I am an idiot but thing I know for sure is.

Good, now I didn't have to say it. Know thy self.

1. It is very easy to fake things on TV however convincing they may seem.

Really? Have you SEEN the special effects on T.V. from the 60's and 70's? I would love to see ONE example of "special effects" that was so effective it can't be discerned from actual life. Even today with supercomputer render farms, the special effects are able to be seen with a little common sense, physics knowledge, and a zoom.

2. The people in power have a tendency to tell us what ever suit them at the time.

Even if I don't believe this, the fact is that EVERYONE that worked on the Apollo missions says the same thing, not just the people in power. What about the scientists at NASA that use actual scientific proof and data to show that we did go to the moon? This is just a fear of government.

3. NASA has stopped going to the moon and has no plans to go back there.

They DO have plans to go back. I find you wording interesting: "NASA has stopped going to the moon..." as in, they WERE going to the moon, and they stopped. Do you really believe the nonsense you are blurting?

4. I know for sure 100% in 1969 NASA/US Gov did have the technology to fake the moon landings. I can not say with absolute certainty they did go there.

Man, I would like some examples of that! 100% sure?! What about a vacuum chamber double or quadruple the size of a warehouse? Computing ability? Orbiting satellites to fake moon signals? PLEASE... The fact that you are "100% sure" tells me you have purposely avoided looking at the scientific facts, and the proof that we did land there. This is disturbing to me.

5. The Russian that according to even NASA sources were ahead of the Americans in rocketry during the 1960s could not do it.

There are reasons for that other than the fact that it's "impossible." 'Nuff said. Besides, it's interesting you bring up Russia, because you KNOW they were carefully watching our space program. They would have watched the signals coming from the ships, the designs coming out of NASA. If there was some big conspiracy they would have found it, and launched a huge propoganda campaign. The fact that the Soviet Russians KNOW we went to the moon is very telling.

6. People will believe just about any old rubbish as long as it suits them to do so.

LOL, it's actually quite ironic that you would say that, as you are a walking, talking proof of concept.

One thing I would like to see is the telemetric data. With particular interest to the moon take off and the rendezvous with Luna orbiter.

Well, it seems that telemetric data would be the EASIEST to fake, it's just a spreadsheet of numbers! You are obviously looking in the wrong places for supposed proof of your theories. You might as well give up while you're behind, there certainly won't be any catching up happening here!

 

[totalidiot]

goavs4,
The theory is that they duped the people working at NASA too. Someone at NASA may be talking about going to the moon. They may even have the technology now. Let's wait and see.

Mech_Engineer,
Big lies such as the resurrection of Christ or any other so called miracles that many people defended as vehemently as you do the moon landings.
The only point I was interested in hearing an argument for was the Luna module take off and rendezvous with the orbiter, this is the part I find very hard to believe.
This point was just brushed off, was this because you can not provide a satisfactory answer?
Do you think it was possible that they sent up an unmanned Luna orbiter and the rest was faked?
That would satisfy most of the sceptics and believers alike.
Put that in your rocket motor and smoke it.

 

[Pengwuino]

Totalidiot,

Did you know that you're the only person in your town? It's true! Everyone else is a robot. Why do i know its true and that you're in denial?

1. It is very easy to fake things to people in real life if you surround them with the lie

2. You will probably believe this because its easy for you to believe

3. aww i can't make up a funny yet equal comparison for this one

4. The technology to create a virtual world with robots exists. I cannot say for certain everyone in your life is not a robot

5. You're friends don't believe they're robots and they don't believe the technology to be robots exists.

6. You just don't believe you're surrounded by robots because it doesn't suit you

Thus, using similar logic, i declare that you have no convincing evidence that everyone around you is not a robot. Silly? Same logic...

Maybe if you're logic even had any connection to the actual mission. You're basically saying "well it was POSSIBLE so it had to have happened! Only people who deny the common view are right simply because they deny it", etc etc. I think you're brain has fallen out according to Feynman.

 

[Rach3]

The only point I was interested in hearing an argument for was the Luna module take off and rendezvous with the orbiter, this is the part I find very hard to believe.
This point was just brushed off, was this because you can not provide a satisfactory answer?

You could have followed ZapperZ's excellent link in post #27. See -

http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html (rocket engines)
http://www.clavius.org/techlmstab.html (stability)
http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html (training vehicle on earth))
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1971-008C (Apollo 14 Lunar module)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module (v. nice tables, links)

If you're skeptical about order-of-magnitude issues, play around with the numbers from NASA's description and an introductory physics text.

Any specific questions?

Do you think it was possible that they sent up an unmanned Luna orbiter and the rest was faked?
That would satisfy most of the sceptics and believers alike.

No; there's overwhelming evidence that the human explorers did in fact land on the surface (not least of which the mirrors they left behind). Going from lunar orbit to the surface and back, is a much easier task than leaving Earth's gravity, and reentering Earth's atmosphere. - so why the heck wouldn't they?

 

[russ_watters]

Lies are always easier to believe than the truth, especially very big ones.

Why? That sounds like a meaningless cliche to me.

Would it not have been possible to have pre-recorded the whole affair in for arguments sake in area 51 then play the tape at the allotted time?

With technology available in 1969? Absolutely not. You did see Star Wars, right...? That was made in 1974 and pioneered some of the technologies that would have been required to fake the moon landings. And even then, you can tell it is fake.

They could have sent up real rockets that would fly out of sight then break up and then fall back down to Earth over the ocean?

Sure, but so what? Just because it is possible doesn't mean they did it. What is easier to believe now? It looks like to you it is easier to believe people lied than that they (and "they" is several hundred thousand people, btw) than that they didn't.

All the reported Apollo radio transmissions were allegedly broadcast from Washington DC.

That is not possible. It is easy for someone who cares to tell the difference. Ie, the Soviets.

I am an idiot but thing I know for sure is.

1. It is very easy to fake things on TV however convincing they may seem.

Today maybe, but in 1969 the technology was simply not available.

2. The people in power have a tendency to tell us what ever suit them at the time.

That isn't an argument.

3. NASA has stopped going to the moon and has no plans to go back there.

True. So what?

4. I know for sure 100% in 1969 NASA/US Gov did have the technology to fake the moon landings. I can not say with absolute certainty they did go there.

You are wrong. The technology did not exist to fake the moon landings.

5. The Russian that according to even NASA sources were ahead of the Americans in rocketry during the 1960s could not do it.

That's true, but there is a pretty good reason why we beat them: the single vs multiple stage lander approach. Their approach required a rocket several times the size of ours and they were unable to do it.

6. People will believe just about any old rubbish as long as it suits them to do so.

Clearly you are demonstrating that right now.

One thing I would like to see is the telemetric data. With particular interest to the moon take off and the rendezvous with Luna orbiter.

There are millions of pages of data if you care to wade through them...

 

[russ_watters]

Man, I would like some examples of that! 100% sure?! What about a vacuum chamber double or quadruple the size of a warehouse?

Not good enough: the lunar rovers had cameras on them and drove several km.

 

[russ_watters]

goavs4,
The theory is that they duped the people working at NASA too. Someone at NASA may be talking about going to the moon.

Huh? The people at NASA thought they were going to the moon, but they weren't? I met Jim Lovell. He doesn't seem like a guy who you could dupe into thinking he was on the moon when he wasn't.

The only point I was interested in hearing an argument for was the Luna module take off and rendezvous with the orbiter, this is the part I find very hard to believe.
This point was just brushed off, was this because you can not provide a satisfactory answer?

Dear lord - just saying it is hard to believe is not a question. What is it that you want to know about it? Rendesvous in space was first done with Gemini 8 and isn't all that hard.

Do you think it was possible that they sent up an unmanned Luna orbiter and the rest was faked?

No.

 

[goavs4]

goavs4,
The theory is that they duped the people working at NASA too. Someone at NASA may be talking about going to the moon. They may even have the technology now. Let's wait and see.

Mech_Engineer,
Big lies such as the resurrection of Christ or any other so called miracles that many people defended as vehemently as you do the moon landings.
The only point I was interested in hearing an argument for was the Luna module take off and rendezvous with the orbiter, this is the part I find very hard to believe.
This point was just brushed off, was this because you can not provide a satisfactory answer?
Do you think it was possible that they sent up an unmanned Luna orbiter and the rest was faked?
That would satisfy most of the sceptics and believers alike.
Put that in your rocket motor and smoke it.

Well I've met dozens of NASA people who would be interested to hear that they have been living a lie for over 30 years, including one of my former college professors who worked at JSC through Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle and ISS. I am sure he would be fascinated to hear how all of those mission plans, GN&C algorithms and control laws he wrote were all part of a grand scheme and his whole career was a lie. I mean, he got his experience planning fake Apollo missions yet miraculously when he applied these same principles, algorithms, and systems to later vehicles it all magically worked in the real world. That is unless of course you are implying all NASA missions from day one have been faked.

How about the technological innovation resulting from Apollo? That sort of thing is driven by real world problems, tests, analysis and solutions not imaginary problems and fake missions. All of this new technology was developed to support fake missions and none of the capability actually existed? Do you know how asinine that sounds? Have you ever worked on a real engineering problem and tried to do it completely on paper with no reference or ability to test a theory in practice? Frankly, it's impossible, pretty pictures and back of the envelope calculations are fun but the nitty gritty is in the details by actually building and testing real functional systems and integrating them together. That's where you discover all the things you didn't think of and where the innovation comes into overcome obstacles and find solutions, many times in the form of a new technology or practice. The amount of new technology and discovery across all fields of engineering as a result of Apollo was so vast only a person with no actual experience would claim people spent dozens of years working on imaginary problems and developing solutions to imaginary missions and faked scenarios. I'm not knocking you man, I just think you need to actually have had some experience before you dismiss so much out of hand. The scale and evidence is so overwhelming. This was a gigantic multi-billion dollar program spanning the globe with impacts felt deeply 30 years after the fact, the implication that this was all the result of people being duped on a grand scale yet somehow they still invented and developed innovative technologies that later worked in practice is just goofy.

As far as what the plans are for future missions did you miss the whole Exploration speech Dubya had broadcast around the world a couple of years ago? Someone at NASA may be talking about going to the moon? Are you kidding me? Either read the copious amounts of information in the link I provided about the huge undertaking already well underway, or if you are too lazy, ask away. I'd me more than happy to fill you in.

No one brushed your question off, you are ignoring the huge amount of rebuttal provided at length in the links posted. Check out Rach3's post who took the time to outline where you can find you answers since you won't look in the links provided for yourself. There is more than enough detail there concerning lunar ascent and rendezvous. Read through it and work it out yourself, no one is going to hold your hand and lead you through it here, those people created that site for a reason. If you don't understand something then ask, we will help you through it.

I don't get your point about the lunar ascent anyway, that part is a cake walk compared to a multiple stage rocket ascending through Earth's atmosphere and gravity, orbit insertion, separation and docking and performing a burn to get into a lunar transfer orbit. Launching in 1/6th the gravity with no atmosphere or staging is basic rocketry compared to that. The only hard part is insuring that the thrust vector for the ascent burn passes through your cm so you don't have any off-axis effects. Even then, you won't be perfect and the lunar ascent module had gimble system AND an RCS system to allow for minor corrections in attitude to compensate which was all controlled and compensated for in realtime by the flight computer onboard.

If you want to present valid arguments and questions fine but don't just postulate "That's hard to believe" and expect someone to outline a solution for you. Look at the evidence yourself, try to understand it and if you have any difficulty ask a specific question or questions and people will provide answers as best they can. I would really suggest you start at that site Rach3 references above, it's got a lot of good information not to mention references of where the information came from so you can track it all down yourself if you so desire.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Lies are always easier to believe than the truth, especially very big ones.

Would it not have been possible to have pre-recorded the whole affair in for arguments sake in area 51 then play the tape at the allotted time?

They could have sent up real rockets that would fly out of sight then break up and then fall back down to Earth over the ocean?

All the reported Apollo radio transmissions were allegedly broadcast from Washington DC.

I am an idiot but thing I know for sure is.

1. It is very easy to fake things on TV however convincing they may seem.

2. The people in power have a tendency to tell us what ever suit them at the time.

3. NASA has stopped going to the moon and has no plans to go back there.

4. I know for sure 100% in 1969 NASA/US Gov did have the technology to fake the moon landings. I can not say with absolute certainty they did go there.

5. The Russian that according to even NASA sources were ahead of the Americans in rocketry during the 1960s could not do it.

6. People will believe just about any old rubbish as long as it suits them to do so.

One thing I would like to see is the telemetric data. With particular interest to the moon take off and the rendezvous with Luna orbiter.

None of this supports the claim of a conspiracy.

Since we are now arguing for a conspiracy because and only because it might be possible to imagine in the most extreme sense [and I don't even believe that], we're done.